If you're going to use that argument, should all macs have a multitude of USB ports? Or if a switcher is getting an iMac, it's not as important because they can be really messy about things and plug stuff into the keyboard?
Well, laptops have have limited space and none of Apple's desktops have been updated in awhile. So perhaps the next round of updates of the mini, iMac and MacPro will all have more USB ports.
My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs. DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.
Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine. Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.
REPEAT after me: It's not a sin to want faster processors...
I can think of a couple of reasons for the miniDVI...
First, the miniDVI-to-DVI/VGA adaptors are each $19 vs $29 for the miniDP-to-DVI/VGA. So it's cheaper for customers or for Apple to include the adaptor in the box.
Second, miniDP supports DRM, and my understanding is that the miniDP adaptors won't work to put DRM'd content on a legacy display. Including the miniDVI would be a way to avoid obsoleting your display if/when Apple activates the DRM (for HD movie rentals, for example). For the MB/MBP this isn't as big a deal because you'd still be able to view the content on the built-in display if not an external monitor. But for the mini, you need a connector that's always going to work with older displays.
If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
What do you mean by not ready for prime time? FW3200 is already defined in IEEE 1394b spec, which was released when FW800 was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewir..._1394b-2002.29). The new spec just offers some further clarifications. Therefore, it's quite possible that the FW800 chip installed in the upcoming mini will support FW3200 when those devices come out.
Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.
Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.
The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.
I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.
It's probably a cell phone photo which explains the graininess. Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the camera is focus on the wood grain of the table, not the back of the mini. This is pretty typical when you try to take a close up photo with a camera phone. Also, if you look at the top edge of the USB ports, you can see the reflection from the metal shift from port to port. This is exactly what would happen in a real photo due to the different reflection angle between the camera and light source shifting with the offset of each port. If the photo is a fake, it's a really good fake.
Also, the port arrangement you are saying makes no sense is the EXACT port arrangement of the current mini.
If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.
True, but it's unclear exactly how Apple would implement it if they did. If I recall correctly, when Apple had it's "oops" when the new MacBooks were accidentally released with HDCP enabled, the video refused to play at all, not even in SD format.
-the Mini is positioned a low-end consumer grade machine
-that Apple removed FW400 from the low-end consumer MacBook
-that Apple is still selling the previous model MacBook with FW400
I would say it is quite unlikely that Apple would upgrade the Mini from FW400 to FW800.
I think it would be more likely that Apple might lead the way to USB 3.0 (presuming there is a chipset available), and include a USB 3 port (and either have all USB 3 ports, which are backwards compatible with USB 2 or have several other USB 2 ports, depending on cost & chipset capabilities).
The mac mini is neither consumer or pro it just is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbw87
But they sell a mini-displayport to DVI adapter: there's no need for mini DVI.
I could understand if they put a full-size DVI port on the mini, to cater for people's old monitors without the need for adapters. But customers who buy it for use with a DVI monitor will need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY, so why the hell not just put mini-DP on there and be done with it?
Makes no sense. I call fake.
I would think for the same reason video cards had/have vga and dvi, this probably can drive 2 monitors...
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.dub
Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.
Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.
The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.
I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.
I don't know I used to do full time photo retouching for like 5 years, and that noise is hard to retouch, especially because the lighting of it is graduated and the shadows in the jacks look pretty good. It's barely possible to get something looking that good, like a fresh photo from a 2-3 Mega Pixel camera and then JPEGed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Remember the thread about data centers using minis. That would be way cool to use FW800 with external storage for a web servers.
FW800 would be great for a 1TB 3.5inch 7200 Mini Stack or something...
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00
The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.
Thanks for reminding me GOSH I hope this has 802.11n NNN...
The Mac Mini for most people is a great computer to hook up to your large screen TV. Why go with an Apple TV that is limited in functionality as well as power, when you can have a full blown computer that is a lot more powerful?
There is a completely different class of users - that use the Mac Mini in an entirely different way - Data Centers have sprung up with racks and racks of Mac Mini units - and their requirements are entirely different to what the Home Theater enthusiast needs.
For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast considers the Mac Mini to be essentially a low power computer hooked up to the TV - a glorified Apple TV for most people. But if you are putting stacks of the Mac Mini in a data center, you need the Mac Mini to be a powerful computer.
For a long time, Server Consolidation was the buzz word for Administrators - Take really monstrously powerful hardware and create Virtual Computers on them - to which you can dynamically allocate processors, RAM, disk space, etc. This was considered as a way to reduce the cost of a server. However there has been another dynamic at work - because servers use expensive parts that are produced in much lower volumes than the low end computers, the price per unit of performance is a lot better for the lower end computers than for servers. Despite the fact that price per unit is higher in servers, the cost of rack space, power consumption, heat dissipation costs, etc. still forced most people to go in for Server Consolidation. The Mac Mini has turned all those equations in favor of the low end machine. It takes up much lesser space, uses much lesser power, and generates much lesser heat - in fact, Mac Mini does not even require a fan to dissipate heat. Because of this, most "Server" applications can be efficiently handled by the Mac Mini. Even high end high performance Server applications can be handled cheaper by a stack of Minis that distribute the tasks between them, than by massive powerful computers.
The requirements of these two communities are completely different. For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast needs a DVD player/recorder - but on a server it is useless to have DVD drives on each server machine! They would much rather have that space utilized for 3.5" HDD instead of the current 2.5" HDD.
There are other such differences as well - like the need for USB ports, firewire ports, WiFi, etc. Servers dont need these capabilities, but Home Theater users need lots of these.
To add to the above confusion, there is also the nascent Car Computer market - where the Mini is very popular. That market has entirely different needs to everyone else - starting from the voltage used by the computer, and the location of all the ports/controls!
Quite obviously Apple does not want to confuse the market by releasing different versions of the Mac Mini targetting different segments - this is so "un-Apple". Along with this, there is another dynamic at work - Apple does not earn too much of margins from the Mac Mini -and obviously, the Mac Mini is cannibalizing some sales from the iMac.
There is one way for Apple to handle both these issues - and that, is to sell the Mac Mini as a "component" based system, where the components fit together like Bricks. Each market segment would buy the components they need, and can ignore the components they dont need. Apple needs to come up with a connector technology that gives much better throughput between the components than is possible with existing technologies. For instance, servers would like to have a lot of HDD space - would be great if a Mac Mini can have 3-4 HDD "bricks" attached to it - and with connectivity that is close in speeds to internal connectivity. Quite obviously, USB/Firewire connectivity for disks will not be acceptable at all.
This connector technology would be proprietary to Apple, and they can earn money by licensing this technology to 3rd parties. It should be sophisticated enough that it would work for various purposes - fast data for HDD, etc., support USB, Firewire, Bluetooth, WiFi etc. for the consumer, support additional Consumer devices like Video Grabbers, Audio/Video amplifiers, etc.
This drastic redesign is what is causing so much of a delay in the release of the Mac Mini. If Apple can do this right, and can patent everything that goes into this, it will easily be able to capture significant chunk of the market for servers, as well as the entire Home Theater enthusiast market. At the same time, margins will not be impacted at all - because each of the components can actually be sold at even higher margins that Apple makes on their other product lines. And people will happily pay for the convenience and flexibility that this approach offers.
This will also be the best way to offer "true" upgrading capability to the market. Quite obviously, none of today's computers are upgraded often. Even computers like the Mac Pro, which can be upgraded, dont see too many upgrades in practise. However, if the components are all individual bricks, that fit together seamlessly, it will obviously be a much more upgradeable solution - the customer can add/replace a brick at any time.
All these images floating around on the internet are most likely photoshopped rumor posts. The other possibility is that Apple has not yet perfected the "brick" design, so there will be one more iteration of the Mac Mini, with marginal changes, before Apple goes in for the total overhaul described above.
Without a dedicated PCI-Express GPU it's DOA for my needs.
The 9400M outperforms the 2400XT in the iMac. It gives you near parity with dedicated solutions at the entry level. Anything higher you wouldn't be seeing in a Mini anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00
The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.
Wireless-N devices were on the market before support for it arrived in Macs.
Until FW3200 devices arrive whats the use? Same goes for USB 3 for that matter...
As has been the history of computing technology you need adoption before you can build peripherials. In the case of USB Apple was one of the earliest adopters going. Considering there is nothing for Apple to adopt with the newer Firewire standards implementation is possible.
By nothing to adopt I mean the connector is backwards compatible. Considering the low pain involved implementation would purely be a case of having the new hardware ready. Wether the hardware is ready is another question.
We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs.
Good CPUs they may be but the performance differential is to huge to ignore. Using your logic a Pentium would be good enough, but you really don't see much demand for old Pentium hardware on the desk top.
The other thing is that you are going to want a processor with lots of threads once Snow Leopard comes out.
Quote:
DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.
Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine.
It wouldn't be much better than the current machine that everybody complains about.
Quote:
Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.
Well if you say so. I just don't think the majority of the people waiting on a new Mini would agree with you.
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00
My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00
What do you mean by not ready for prime time? FW3200 is already defined in IEEE 1394b spec, which was released when FW800 was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewir..._1394b-2002.29). The new spec just offers some further clarifications. Therefore, it's quite possible that the FW800 chip installed in the upcoming mini will support FW3200 when those devices come out.
As I understand it, FW800 ports need only the new 3200 cable to give full FW3200 speeds.
Comments
If you're going to use that argument, should all macs have a multitude of USB ports? Or if a switcher is getting an iMac, it's not as important because they can be really messy about things and plug stuff into the keyboard?
Well, laptops have have limited space and none of Apple's desktops have been updated in awhile. So perhaps the next round of updates of the mini, iMac and MacPro will all have more USB ports.
My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs. DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.
Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine. Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.
REPEAT after me: It's not a sin to want faster processors...
I can think of a couple of reasons for the miniDVI...
First, the miniDVI-to-DVI/VGA adaptors are each $19 vs $29 for the miniDP-to-DVI/VGA. So it's cheaper for customers or for Apple to include the adaptor in the box.
Second, miniDP supports DRM, and my understanding is that the miniDP adaptors won't work to put DRM'd content on a legacy display. Including the miniDVI would be a way to avoid obsoleting your display if/when Apple activates the DRM (for HD movie rentals, for example). For the MB/MBP this isn't as big a deal because you'd still be able to view the content on the built-in display if not an external monitor. But for the mini, you need a connector that's always going to work with older displays.
If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
What do you mean by not ready for prime time? FW3200 is already defined in IEEE 1394b spec, which was released when FW800 was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewir..._1394b-2002.29). The new spec just offers some further clarifications. Therefore, it's quite possible that the FW800 chip installed in the upcoming mini will support FW3200 when those devices come out.
Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.
Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.
The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.
I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.
It's probably a cell phone photo which explains the graininess. Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the camera is focus on the wood grain of the table, not the back of the mini. This is pretty typical when you try to take a close up photo with a camera phone. Also, if you look at the top edge of the USB ports, you can see the reflection from the metal shift from port to port. This is exactly what would happen in a real photo due to the different reflection angle between the camera and light source shifting with the offset of each port. If the photo is a fake, it's a really good fake.
Also, the port arrangement you are saying makes no sense is the EXACT port arrangement of the current mini.
If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.
True, but it's unclear exactly how Apple would implement it if they did. If I recall correctly, when Apple had it's "oops" when the new MacBooks were accidentally released with HDCP enabled, the video refused to play at all, not even in SD format.
I like it. While I'd prefer a slightly embiggened mini, keeping the design the same is the next best thing. The mini is a beautiful little machine.
I hear you Jebediah.
Given that:
-the Mini is positioned a low-end consumer grade machine
-that Apple removed FW400 from the low-end consumer MacBook
-that Apple is still selling the previous model MacBook with FW400
I would say it is quite unlikely that Apple would upgrade the Mini from FW400 to FW800.
I think it would be more likely that Apple might lead the way to USB 3.0 (presuming there is a chipset available), and include a USB 3 port (and either have all USB 3 ports, which are backwards compatible with USB 2 or have several other USB 2 ports, depending on cost & chipset capabilities).
The mac mini is neither consumer or pro it just is...
But they sell a mini-displayport to DVI adapter: there's no need for mini DVI.
I could understand if they put a full-size DVI port on the mini, to cater for people's old monitors without the need for adapters. But customers who buy it for use with a DVI monitor will need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY, so why the hell not just put mini-DP on there and be done with it?
Makes no sense. I call fake.
I would think for the same reason video cards had/have vga and dvi, this probably can drive 2 monitors...
Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.
Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.
The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.
I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.
I don't know I used to do full time photo retouching for like 5 years, and that noise is hard to retouch, especially because the lighting of it is graduated and the shadows in the jacks look pretty good. It's barely possible to get something looking that good, like a fresh photo from a 2-3 Mega Pixel camera and then JPEGed...
Remember the thread about data centers using minis. That would be way cool to use FW800 with external storage for a web servers.
FW800 would be great for a 1TB 3.5inch 7200 Mini Stack or something...
The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.
Thanks for reminding me GOSH I hope this has 802.11n NNN...
Laters...
There is a completely different class of users - that use the Mac Mini in an entirely different way - Data Centers have sprung up with racks and racks of Mac Mini units - and their requirements are entirely different to what the Home Theater enthusiast needs.
For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast considers the Mac Mini to be essentially a low power computer hooked up to the TV - a glorified Apple TV for most people. But if you are putting stacks of the Mac Mini in a data center, you need the Mac Mini to be a powerful computer.
For a long time, Server Consolidation was the buzz word for Administrators - Take really monstrously powerful hardware and create Virtual Computers on them - to which you can dynamically allocate processors, RAM, disk space, etc. This was considered as a way to reduce the cost of a server. However there has been another dynamic at work - because servers use expensive parts that are produced in much lower volumes than the low end computers, the price per unit of performance is a lot better for the lower end computers than for servers. Despite the fact that price per unit is higher in servers, the cost of rack space, power consumption, heat dissipation costs, etc. still forced most people to go in for Server Consolidation. The Mac Mini has turned all those equations in favor of the low end machine. It takes up much lesser space, uses much lesser power, and generates much lesser heat - in fact, Mac Mini does not even require a fan to dissipate heat. Because of this, most "Server" applications can be efficiently handled by the Mac Mini. Even high end high performance Server applications can be handled cheaper by a stack of Minis that distribute the tasks between them, than by massive powerful computers.
The requirements of these two communities are completely different. For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast needs a DVD player/recorder - but on a server it is useless to have DVD drives on each server machine! They would much rather have that space utilized for 3.5" HDD instead of the current 2.5" HDD.
There are other such differences as well - like the need for USB ports, firewire ports, WiFi, etc. Servers dont need these capabilities, but Home Theater users need lots of these.
To add to the above confusion, there is also the nascent Car Computer market - where the Mini is very popular. That market has entirely different needs to everyone else - starting from the voltage used by the computer, and the location of all the ports/controls!
Quite obviously Apple does not want to confuse the market by releasing different versions of the Mac Mini targetting different segments - this is so "un-Apple". Along with this, there is another dynamic at work - Apple does not earn too much of margins from the Mac Mini -and obviously, the Mac Mini is cannibalizing some sales from the iMac.
There is one way for Apple to handle both these issues - and that, is to sell the Mac Mini as a "component" based system, where the components fit together like Bricks. Each market segment would buy the components they need, and can ignore the components they dont need. Apple needs to come up with a connector technology that gives much better throughput between the components than is possible with existing technologies. For instance, servers would like to have a lot of HDD space - would be great if a Mac Mini can have 3-4 HDD "bricks" attached to it - and with connectivity that is close in speeds to internal connectivity. Quite obviously, USB/Firewire connectivity for disks will not be acceptable at all.
This connector technology would be proprietary to Apple, and they can earn money by licensing this technology to 3rd parties. It should be sophisticated enough that it would work for various purposes - fast data for HDD, etc., support USB, Firewire, Bluetooth, WiFi etc. for the consumer, support additional Consumer devices like Video Grabbers, Audio/Video amplifiers, etc.
This drastic redesign is what is causing so much of a delay in the release of the Mac Mini. If Apple can do this right, and can patent everything that goes into this, it will easily be able to capture significant chunk of the market for servers, as well as the entire Home Theater enthusiast market. At the same time, margins will not be impacted at all - because each of the components can actually be sold at even higher margins that Apple makes on their other product lines. And people will happily pay for the convenience and flexibility that this approach offers.
This will also be the best way to offer "true" upgrading capability to the market. Quite obviously, none of today's computers are upgraded often. Even computers like the Mac Pro, which can be upgraded, dont see too many upgrades in practise. However, if the components are all individual bricks, that fit together seamlessly, it will obviously be a much more upgradeable solution - the customer can add/replace a brick at any time.
All these images floating around on the internet are most likely photoshopped rumor posts. The other possibility is that Apple has not yet perfected the "brick" design, so there will be one more iteration of the Mac Mini, with marginal changes, before Apple goes in for the total overhaul described above.
Without a dedicated PCI-Express GPU it's DOA for my needs.
The 9400M outperforms the 2400XT in the iMac. It gives you near parity with dedicated solutions at the entry level. Anything higher you wouldn't be seeing in a Mini anyway.
The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.
Wireless-N devices were on the market before support for it arrived in Macs.
The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?
Currently have 8 USB connections connected to my current Apple Mini at work, and have 11 USB connections connected to my iMac at home.
Until FW3200 devices arrive whats the use? Same goes for USB 3 for that matter...
As has been the history of computing technology you need adoption before you can build peripherials. In the case of USB Apple was one of the earliest adopters going. Considering there is nothing for Apple to adopt with the newer Firewire standards implementation is possible.
By nothing to adopt I mean the connector is backwards compatible. Considering the low pain involved implementation would purely be a case of having the new hardware ready. Wether the hardware is ready is another question.
Dave
We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs.
Good CPUs they may be but the performance differential is to huge to ignore. Using your logic a Pentium would be good enough, but you really don't see much demand for old Pentium hardware on the desk top.
The other thing is that you are going to want a processor with lots of threads once Snow Leopard comes out.
DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.
Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine.
It wouldn't be much better than the current machine that everybody complains about.
Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.
Well if you say so. I just don't think the majority of the people waiting on a new Mini would agree with you.
Dave
No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.
What do you mean by not ready for prime time? FW3200 is already defined in IEEE 1394b spec, which was released when FW800 was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewir..._1394b-2002.29). The new spec just offers some further clarifications. Therefore, it's quite possible that the FW800 chip installed in the upcoming mini will support FW3200 when those devices come out.
As I understand it, FW800 ports need only the new 3200 cable to give full FW3200 speeds.